Page 563 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


from the Australian government’s asset recycling scheme and the government’s own asset sales.

We have also been very clear that the cost of light rail compared to the cost of service delivery in other parts of ACT government services is modest and affordable. Let us look at how much the government will spend on other elements of government service delivery just in the current financial year. In the current financial year, this government will spend $2.6 billion on health and education services. It will spend over $500 million on economic growth and diversification. It will spend $660 million on suburban renewal and other transport projects. And it will spend $933 million on livability and social inclusion projects and programs. In the context of total government outlays, the light rail project will account for less than one per cent—less than one per cent—of ACT government expenditure over the life of the PPP term. It is less than one per cent of total government expenditure.

Those opposite can try to scare people with big figures, but they never put it in context. They never put it in the context of how much the government will spend on health, education, housing, community services, municipal services or the whole broad range of other matters that the territory government is responsible for.

I will say it one more time. In the context of total government outlays, over the full project term of this light rail contract, expenditure on light rail is less than one per cent of ACT government expenditure over that period. Affordable? Yes. Achievable? Yes. And the best transport solution for this corridor.

Finally, let me be very clear about the outcomes of the most recent Infrastructure Australia national priority list that was released today. This is very pleasing confirmation as to the importance of public transport improvements on the north Canberra corridor—that is, the Federal Highway and Northbourne Avenue. Infrastructure Australia, through its own economic modelling, has confirmed that this is the most costly area of congestion in our city when it comes to lost economic productivity—the most costly. It has confirmed that there is a need for dedicated right-of-way long-term public transport improvement on this corridor.

The government has made clear to Infrastructure Australia that we are proceeding with the light rail project on this corridor, and they have acknowledged that in their report. Mr Coe can continue to litigate all the arguments about bus rapid transit as much as he likes, but all he has got, after nearly four years of debate on this issue in this place, is an options paper. That is all he has got: an options paper. He is not even prepared to commit to an option, Madam Assistant Speaker. He is not even prepared to commit to an option, and he still has not addressed the key question. Does he seriously think he is going to get planning approval to build a road in the middle of the median strip of Northbourne Avenue? He knows it will not work; he knows he will not get that; he knows it is not going to fly. Yet he persists with his half-baked ill-thought-out schemes which have not yet even reached the stage of a specific policy proposal endorsed by his own party.

This government was elected to do things. This government was elected to get things built, to improve services, to improve infrastructure and to meet the needs of a


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video